Ugly: “Why climate denial should be a criminal offence”

New Zealand Social Scientist Dr Jarrod Gilbert is calling for the Crime of Climate Change Denial to be adopted.

There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change. The scientific consensus is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud. Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested. The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.

Since the 1960s, it has been known that heat-trapping gasses were increasing in the earth’s atmosphere, but no one knew to what effect. In 1979, a study found “no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible”. Since then scientists have been seeking to prove it, and the results are in.

Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities. The American Association for the Advancement of Science compared it to the consensus linking smoking to cancer. The debate is over, yet doubt continues.

Using the “meta studies” of 97% consensus as his applicable research, this truly original thinker, investigator, capable observer both impartial and unbiased, has unleashed his completely reverent. timely and accurate assessment of his media fed diet of Apocalyptic climate change. Heaven forbid Nasa would ever make a mistake, falsify data or misrepresent and adjust 176 years of impartial data observations to suit its own data modelling efforts.

I’m ashamed to be a Kiwi when I read articles like this …. and I despair for the scientific method….

269 thoughts on “Ugly: “Why climate denial should be a criminal offence””

I saw this on the Herald site today, as usual no comment section, just this fascist and his hateful bile. How low have we sunk when this sort of garbage is offered up as a meaningful contribution to any debate (over or not).

It cannot be emphasized enough: the only true climate change deniers in this issue are those demanding the climate to be reset back to a point arbitrarily chosen from around 150 years ago …. and that the climate be forbidden to change from that point from now on.

Pete @ 2:37 am: Re: ” as usual no comment section”. I have noticed that as well, it seems to have become standard practice by the MSM that is becoming the norm. ‘My way or the highway” . To me it is the saddest thing that is happening to the whole human race. This type of clamping down of the population is actually very frightening to me. Other people have noticed that there also seems to be a movement to slowly exclude our generation ( the seemingly last one to get an education rather than indoctrination). I have noticed that as well. Comments?

Fortunately for us, the Internet is *way* bigger than the comment section of a newspaper/news site. Every time that I see that sort of CAGW “news” popping up in free social media, were comments *are* allowed, usually reason prevails and most people point it for what it is a modern times inquisition using fascist techniques.

We must resist and call their bluff at every turn. This Gilbert character is a real nut being paid to push the position of the far-left goons. If he doesn’t play ball he will be replaced by somewhere who will – still, he is selling his soul to the forces of darkness.

He is a prime example of the worst the human race has produced over however long it has been that people have been able to string thoughts and emotions together. Their ilk as brought so much misery to the world that only a giant meteor strike might approach it.

The comments section under Herald stories, especially climate stories, used to be fun. And part of the fun was seeing, over a period of somewhere up to ten years, the twin developments of the warmists steadily losing ground and their arguments becoming more shrill and less scientific. At some time over the past year or two an editorial decision must have been made that comments were destroying the narrative; the percentage of posters who agreed with the thrust of each story was diminishing to the point where an approval rate in double digits was rarely achieved — and then only because the guy who signed himself Gandalf was contributing at a rate that indicated he was pretty much a fulltime keyboard warrior.

No news organ, leaning left or right, is going to continue providing a platform for contrary views. It simply makes no sense.

So, I consider the Herald’s withdrawal of comments on virtually all news and opinion pieces to be a battle won in the Climate Wars.

I hope you intended no pun in your comment above as I don’t ever remember a truer statement.

Jarrod Gilbert is a nut case and no scientist. Those like him seem suffer from severe clinical ‘projection’ which may be treatable with long term psychiatric counseling. Another possibility/probability is that he is perpetuating a global level fraud and the treatment would be considerably different for such a criminal offense.

It’s certainly intellectually offensive. Dr. Jerrod Gilbert H.A. (Horses Ass). From a “discipline?” wherein over 60% of peer reviewed papers cannot be replicated, presumes to place himself in judgement of both science and law that is beyond his intellectual grasp. All hail Emperor Jerrod! Doesn’t he know he has no clothes?

THE ALICE IN WONDERLAND WORLD OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
Alan Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, collected clippings of weird things written by post-modern thinkers about hard science, especially those who use abstruse mathematical terms to make their text incomprehensible, and be mistaken as profound. He grew weary of nonsense about a science described as white, male and Eurocentric. He came to the conclusion that there is no such thing called a social science, because anything goes. He submitted his opinion to experimental test.
PROPOSITION
That a prestigious sociology journal would publish an essay full of outrageous statements, from a scientific point of view, provided it was:
Well written and of learned appearance;
Attuned to the prejudices of the editor.
Sokal’s essay announced the discovery of Quantum Gravity, the synthesis in a superior plane of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, which supersedes both. He had done it with the dialectical logic of social sciences that did away with the outworn formal logic and systematic experiment, still in use and unduly so. The implications of quantum gravity are so revolutionary that the article had been rejected for publication in peer-reviewed journals of physics, and this was the reason for the request for publication in Social Text, a periodical known for an open mind.
The article had nonsense galore, immediately perceptible as a joke by an engineering student. The essay favored mathematics free from the constraints of the rules of arithmetic and stood against the teaching of the geometry of Euclid, an instrument of domination of the working class. There was anti-feminist prejudice in fluid mechanics. All would be relative. The number pi( 3.1416), the speed of light, c, and the constant of gravitation, G, accepted as constants in a given epoch, would change in another social context. [For pi=4, would circles become squares and planets cubes?]
None of this was invented by Sokal; all the nonsense was extracted from what was stated by post-modernist thinkers about hard science and is supported by more than one hundred citations.
PROOF
Sokal’s essay Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity was published “Social Text” #46/47, pp. 217-252 (1996).
In another publication, at the same time, Sokal explained what he had done and regretted that a silent tide of irrationality threatened institutions of higher learning to dictate, from a blind and intolerant pulpit, what is right to do, say and think.
QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM
France is home to scientists like Descartes, Pascal, Fermat, D’Alembert, Delambre, Fourier, Lagrange, Monge, Poisson, Laplace, Cauchy, Galois, Poincaré, Benoit Mandelbrot. Then came Post-modernists with the semantics of a Lewis Carroll character: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”. It leads to proficiency in: Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, Derision, in the strange world of Alice in Wonderland.
Sokal’s essay is available on Internet at: .

You would reach far more people by writing a letter to the editor. Articles like this are sometimes published to draw mail. Your letter would be more likely to be published if either (a) you are a subscriber, or (b) you have credentials in climate science or social studies. If the paper received multiple letters, so much the better.

I’ve found Letters to the Editor to be a waste of time. Most who read them are usually in a politically opinionated “my mind’s made up” group seeking an argument. Those who need enlightenment only read the sports page and the comics.
Besides, most politically correct newspapers will not print any CAGW skepticism.

Actually the U.S is a stride ahead of NZ. No known media value in more than half a century. The informed read, watch MSM to discover which lies they need to background themselves about. Hat tip to Gore for the ‘Net.

As an NZer I too am ashamed. I am hoping to get a “letter to the Editor” published – but don’t hold out too much hope. This is about “the Cause”, it is no longer a matter of science, but we all knew that many years ago.

Absolutely correct. I believe he simply realized little late how much money there is in climate propaganda and he wants a piece of the action. Being a sociologist, he lacks the internal consistency checks that a physicist would apply, at least to thoughts he expresses in public.

Yes, it was the ‘heat trapping gases’ bit that caught my ire. What a blathering idiot. Obviously with his superior intellect, he would have no problem debating the issue on WUWT with all the mindless fools.

When I read his statement, “there is no greater crime” I immediately thought of V for Vendetta. It is ironic how Hollywood portrays fascism as right-wing when it is clearly the method of the liberal agenda.

In this case, “deny” is not equated to proof. “Deny” is equated to consensus. Thus, the “greatest crime” is to think for oneself.

To further his argument, he then states that “intelligence” is indicated by accepting the consensus. Anyone who analyzes the evidence and does not submit to the unproven consensus is a “mindless fool”.

One has to say there is a unique opportunity for the Climate Realist equivalent of Nelson Mandela to one day electrify the world with a court case so profound, so compelling and so pure in the way that the defendant takes to pieces the credentials of the Judge, the Prosecutors, the Established media and the law enforcement professions by speaking unpalatable truth not solely to power, but to 12 Good People and True who will hopefully still be legally charged with sitting as a jury in a duly constituted Court of Law………

‘I want to apply for Your Worship’s recusal from this case. I challenge the right of this court to hear my case on two grounds.

Firstly, I challenge it because I fear that I will not be given a fair and proper trial. Secondly, I consider myself neither legally nor morally bound to obey laws made by a parliament in which I have no representation.

In a political trial such as this one, which involves a clash of the aspirations of the African people and those of whites, the country’s courts, as presently constituted, cannot be impartial and fair.

In such cases, whites are interested parties. To have a white judicial officer presiding, however high his esteem, and however strong his sense of fairness and justice, is to make whites judges in their own case.

It is improper and against the elementary principles of justice to entrust whites with cases involving the denial by them of basic human rights to the African people.

What sort of justice is this that enables the aggrieved to sit in judgement over those against whom they have laid a charge?

A judiciary controlled entirely by whites and enforcing laws enacted by a white parliament in which Africans have no representation – laws which in most cases are passed in the face of unanimous opposition from Africans -‘

I’m sure a little changing of a few words in there and climate realists will get the gist of what I am talking about…….

Don’t you know that Nelson Mandela was a mass-murdering communist who never apologized for any of the victims he had brutally slaughtered? the only reason he sought reconciliation is because his patron, the Soviet Union, collapsed around the time he came to power.

The Statist Collectivists have not only lied about Climate Change, they lie about EVERYTHING – including Mandela’s record. If one is skeptical about the CAGW hypothesis one should also be skeptical about everything the Left lionizes – and it turns out Mandela is the beneficiary of Leftist propaganda that does not match his actual record. If he apologized for any of his victims he might be left off, but he was completely unrepentant.

See Stefan Molyneaux’s “The Truth About Nelson Mandela”, and there are also great exposes of the perpetual cadger Karl Marx, the psychopathic Che Guevara, and the deceptive Ghandi.
“The Truth About Nelson Mandela ”

Please stop repeating the false memes of the Collectivists. Mandela was an unrepentant mass murderer – the lives of his victims matter !

they will say “The efforts that they made resulted in the blunting of the climate catastrophe that would have occurred, AND the sustainable practices that have been implemented because of the lessened reliance on fossil fuels were worth it.”

They will rationalize their beliefs and actions until they die (or retire on a government pension).

After they’ve sacrificed the world economy on the alter of Climate , they will blame the world’s desperation on Capitalism and tell us that Socialism is the only path to salvation. That and free money. Free money is always available.

– Some of them never repent.
– Some of them deny ever thinking about criminalizing dissent
– Some of them continue their fascist ideas with different targets
– Some of them change their mind, but new fascists always appear

The idea that quantification of an antropogenic greenhouse effect could be written to a lawbook as a some kind of god that cannot be questioned, is far-fetched but definitely both stupid and dangerous.

I’m really starting to despair for the scientific tradition, with the way we’re going. From the “AGs united for clean power with Loretta Lynch and the rest of them, and Al Gore, to this. Is it going to actually be put in place? It looks somewhat likely, given the leaders we have at the moment, and from what I can see, we could actually be put in gulags, mental institutes or prison for holding certain beliefs in the near future. I wonder what we could do to at least try and stem the tide to where we are heading.

However… the “greater crime being perpetuated on future generations” is these idiots running up huge debt to fight a war against an illusory foe, destroying the landscape to build useless windmills, and shutting down all of the most effective methods of power generation, and distracting our civilization from the real, armed, warring enemy.

History will not be kind to these despicable alarmists. I intend to make sure of that.

Quick to judge, are we? If you look at the relative positions of the “r” and “u” in relation to the homerow letters “f” and “j” on the qwerty keyboard, all one need do is use the right index finger rather than the left index finger and the word perpetrate becomes perpetuate. Perhaps not “illiterate”, but a simple typo. Happens to me regularly as I age. Chill out, Geoffy!

You can perpetrate a crime ON someone…which is his exact wording and context.

Perpetuating denial ON future generations makes no sense.

First usage below is wrong…second is correct.

“..There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change. The scientific consensus is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud…”

Word similarity plus lack of curiosity. It’s not a typo, since you hear people offering the same confusion in speech. On the bright side maybe Gilbert should relax. If the “error” has been perpetuated there’s nothing to be done about it.

FOr Goodness sake.
New Zealand was where the first challenge to data in court occurred. The warmists refused to turn up to defend it once the sceptics evidence was given.
New Zealand also was exposed as the warmist cartel tried to get a man sacked from University for not kowtowing to them. They failed there also.
New Zealand also was where a court rejected a Pacific Islander’s facetious claim as being a climate change refugee.
Yet this climate advocate is trying to get sceptics jailed? He must like losing in court or he is some sort of educated simpleton.

Anthony, If Mr. Wilkinson is correct and the writer of the article has lodged an objection to the headline, you should definitely update the article to include his objection. Upon re-reading the text of the article, the writer did not call for making skepticism a “criminal offense.” Rather, he stated that there is “no greater crime” than skepticism. There is a difference. He’s using hyperbole. He’s not calling for legislation to criminalize skepticism, as the headline writer implied.

The problem people such as Dr Jarrod Gilbert have is they think that doubters of the validity of the climate models and ‘evidence’ are made up of a small fringe section of society. Thus easily attacked and denigrated. The best course of action would be to demonstrate by email to Dr Jarrod Gilbert that he is mistaken.

Mark W:
He’s admitted he lives in NZ. It’s winter in NZ. It’s stopped raining—barely—for only a few short intervals over the last two months. That photo must be at least four months old. That’s when it was fine and dry.

i always find it amusing when they use the word “deniers”: Like if we would “deny the climate is changing”.

i have bad news for them: almost every CAGW sceptic does say the climate is changing, but got the big picture right: earth’s climate is always changing, it did so in the past, will do it in the future, it will go up, but also will go down. CO2 can’t be “the mother of all drivers”, it’s far to insignificant compared to water vapor.

ice core data also shows that what we see now is peanuts and perfectly normal compared to what earth can throw at us.

Only a ‘mindless fool’ like Dr? Gilbert, would call the thousands of expert scientists who disagree with his theory, ‘mindless fools’. Gilbert should be stripped of his academic qualifications through treating his fellow scientist and others who disagree with him so disgracefully. It is clear that he has great difficulty in getting his theories accepted through sound argument, and still supports the ridiculous 97 per cent. falsehood.

IMHO Dr Gilbert should not be prosecuted for his Illogical arguments. What catastrophe awaits us when this mindless drivel comes from the mouths of “social scientists”? Does no-one speak out about this undemocratic nonsense? It continues to poison civilized society. Perhaps he should withdraw from civilization as we know it and return to the caves of prehistoric man.
I certainly hope he doesn’t continue to use any carbon-based energy to support his lifestyle – now that would be unethical for a “social scientist” who thinks like he does.

There are rarely any consequences for spouting this type of nonsense (in fact, doing so often results in more attention and approval from the brain-damaged) because any publicity is good publicity. The parents have left the house and the children are in charge.

The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.

Well, if that’s all they are, what’s he so upset about..? If they’re only ‘mindless fools’, surely they pose no threat to anyone? Hmmmm….

Unbelievable – it just gets worse by the hour!
What I cannot understand is how anyone even listens to these lunatics, let alone publishes their sick and twisted ideology and HATE propaganda in a once respected newspaper such as the NZ Herald.
They are the true criminals by their very own lefty SJW ‘hate and vilification’ criteria.

This one pairs well with Dr. Ball’s article over the weekend. Clearly this person is a title with no intelligence behind it. But I am sure regimes of the past would love his ignorane. Like Stalinist Russia and Lysenkoism.

Yes, the NZ media has sunk to a new low. As a Kiwi I feel rather ashamed and fear greatly for our youth. I penned the following reply to the NZ Herald…but I doubt they will publish it as they stopped printing my letters 3 years ago:

“Jarrod Gilbert could not be more wrong…the greatest “crime being perpetuated on future generations” is not by climate skeptics but rather by those academics, media, NGOs and the UN who perpetuate the global warming myth. It is they who should be tried for a “criminal offense” against humanity. If one fraction of the millions spent by the 40,000 parasites at the last IPCC talkfest in Paris had been spent drilling water wells in Africa instead, millions of lives could be saved in a few years.
As a sociologist apparently Gilbert feels he knows more that the thousands of scientists who are actually brave enough to stand up to the media hype. Could he please provide even one scientific fact to show that manmade CO2 has been anything but beneficial for this planet and the plants that grow thereon.”

There is no greater ‘apostasy’ being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny ‘religious truth’. The ‘God-given truth’ is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a ‘devilish deception’. ‘Unbelief’ has become a yardstick by which ‘morality and faith’ can be tested. The term ‘heretic’ is now interchangeable with the term ‘immoral sinner’.

Since the 1960s, it has been known that heat-trapping gasses were increasing in the earth’s atmosphere, but no one knew to what effect. In 1979, a study found “no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible”. Since then ‘religious scholars’ have been seeking to prove it, and the results are in.

Meta studies show that 97 per cent of ‘published clerics’ agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities. The ‘Global Association for the Advancement of Faith’ compared it to the consensus linking ‘sin to damnation’. The debate is over, yet doubt continues.

By his own logic then, advocating foolish positions in other areas of public policy must be criminalized. We could start by the proof offered by Dr. Ludwig von Mises that a socialist economy was literally impossible because it destroys essential price information and thus destroys the ability of participants to make rational economic decisions. We could move from there to social policy in the US that has destroyed the black family structure such that over 70% of black children grow to adulthood without a father in the home and that black males commit murder at a rate of 8x that of white males. Then there is the now-popular idea that the economy can be stimulated by printing and borrowing near-infinite amounts of debt that pays for crony capitalism and government “benefits”.

But who gets to decide what is foolish and what is rational? The very concept that foolish positions must be criminalized implies that elites install themselves as the arbiters of truth. Let us return to a “science” that tells us the earth is flat and the sun orbits around it.

Rear Adm. Jonathan White, the Navy’s chief oceanographer and head of its climate-change task force, is one of the most knowledgeable people in the military about what’s actually happening on our rapidly heating planet. Whenever another officer or a congressperson corners White and presses him about why he spends so much time thinking about climate change, he doesn’t even try to explain thermal expansion of the oceans or ice dynamics in the Arctic. “I just take them down to Norfolk,” White says. “When you see what’s going on down there, it gives you a sense of what climate change means to the Navy — and to America. And you can see why we’re concerned.”

Either he’s a total moron, a liar, or a bit of both. What is happening there is due primarily to subsidence and landfill settling. Plus, I would love to hear him explain about “thermal expansion of the oceans” or “ice dynamics in the Arctic”. It would be a laugh riot, guaranteed.

Exactly. GangGreen has infiltrated everywhere that matters, government, media, education systems. Their propaganda should be working and it did for quite some time, but it’s breaking apart now and very obviously. The people have turned against them. That’s what they can’t understand. All that effort and it’s not working anymore.

A good example of why no one should pay attention to a social scientist.
His first error is in quoting a fraudulent claim about consensus.
His major error is in assuming that anyone who is skeptical of the actions of the alarmists
believes that humans have caused no global warming – I know of no skeptical scientists who believe that one. The man doesn’t even understand the basic facts or issues in the debate.
Another problem is his apparent belief that global warming is occurring – in this case he is the one in denial.
Another problem is his belief that the global warming that is occuring will be harmful
and that emissions will not be reduced by economic reasons – cheaper molten salt reactors that
produce zero emissions.
This is why I laugh anytime a social scientist makes any claim – even claims that are relevant to
his science. He clearly is not qualified to make any statements about climate science.

In my close up experience, if you scratch intellectual veneer of far too many academics, you find hateful bigots who use sciencey and educated words to push their ironically anti-intellectual, intolerant and harmful ideas. Dr. Gilbert literally has not one fact to offer in his bizarre hate-on for those who dare disagree with him. Gilbert is at best a trained parrot, saying things he has heard repeated over and over until he can echo them with an nearly authentic sound. But on close listening he is apparently doing so with no actual intelligence required. Certainly he accomplishes his noisy squawk without need for ethics or morality.

He is a social scientist not a real hard science scientist. So what do you expect from him. He has no idea how to handle actual real hard science and things it is all squishy and subject to what the crowd thinks not what the data thinks.

Take note of who the fascists are. They feel empowered and invincible. You will know them by what they say and do. So never never forget. The pendulum has passed its inflection point and is swinging away from the CAGW extremists. A new dawn is coming.

“There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change.”…

“Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities.”

Yep we noticed the social scientist pea and thimble trick there and it’s been done to death doc. Do keep up. It’s been extreme weather for quite a while now but they tell me coral bleaching is all the go at the moment.

It would seem to me that “social scientist” is the new term for “religious prosthelytizer” as what is being foisted upon the public is nothing short of a new religion. “Denier” is the new heretic. The Torquemadas are slithering out from the muck to once again poison humanity.

I have found that when used as a modifier, the word “social” is indistinguishable from the word “not.
Thus “social scientists” is the functional equivalent of “not scientist”. “Social Justice” equals “Not Justice” and so on.

Nick Cater in The Australian writing an article headed- ‘Denial of speech is one step towards totalitarianism’
and a classic line-
‘The road to totalitarianism begins with a love of humanity and a contempt for humans.’
Struck me as rather poignant for left/greens who are always banging on about too many people on their precious Gaia. Soylent Greens one suspects but they seem reluctant to be in the vanguard.

There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who subvert science to support political agendas. The IPCC’s self serving scientific consensus is so corrupt that to argue for it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud. Alarmism has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested. The term climate consensus is now interchangeable with the term mindless fools.

Since the 1960s, it has been known that heat-trapping gasses were increasing in the earth’s atmosphere, but no one knew to what effect. In 1979, a study found “no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible”. Since then scientists have been trying to prove it, and the results are in. They failed on the science and had to resort to political support and fear mongering.

Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and human activities play at most a minor role. The American Association for the Advancement of Science compared it to the consensus linking smoking to cancer demonstrates how corrupt the science has become that they must resort to this kind of misrepresentation. The debate is only over in the minds of those who don’t know any better.

The mindless fool Jarrod Gilbert
A mindless fool who thinks that climate was static before humans started lighting fires
A mindless fool who thinks atmospheric CO2 radiative dynamics are as simple as he is
A mindless fool who doesn’t know anything about chaos and nonlinear dynamics
A mindless fool who believes that verbiage from progressive eco-jerks and journalists is science
A mindless fool who thinks a social scientist has any chance of understanding that climate dynamics are determined by physical, not political and social processes
A mindless fool who thinks that climate can only change and has only changed by human intervention: such stupidity is unlikely to ever have been achieved before in a hominin.
A mindless fool who failed to understand his primary teacher’s explanation of CO2 and photosynthesis
A mindless fool who fails to see anything wrong with claims that more plant growth must be bad
A mindless fool who thinks that altering the temperature record means anthropogenic climate change
A mindless fool who believes the world was created in 1850 and has never heard of ice ages or Cambrian explosions happening with 10,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere
A mindless fool unable to hold more than one simple thought in his head
A mindless fool who thinks he is safe to threaten intelligent free-thinking people just because he lives in a small remote island.

Dr. Gilbert, how about a bit of historical perspective: in the 1960s and 1970s, environmental scientists were proclaiming that the “human volcano” was causing a new ice age. Oh, wait. That’s right. Climate “scientists” today change data AND history to “prove” they’re right.

It must be inconvenient that people are still alive who remember what you’ve tried to change.

Lord knows what will come out of the mouths of some fools when they jump into science with no knowledge of the scientific method. We must all be ever vigilant and call out these fools when they stray from the scientific method.

How can you argue with an esteemed sociologist, deep in thought holding a book and glancing derisively at the camera like that? Anyone who doubts his wisdom is obviously a fool who should be thrown in jail post haste.

Jarrod Gilbert, 1536: “Why those who criticize our King Henry must be beheaded!”
Jarrod Gilbert , 1450: “Why those who criticize our beloved Pope must be burned at the stake!”
Jarrod Gilbert , 1st Century: “Who those who criticize Great Caesar must be crucified!”

He and his intellectual forbears have always been around, and like cockroaches, they keep having to be stamped out or else they’ll cause real trouble for all of us.

There must be lots of lawyers who both believe in the alarmism and who can draft legislation that would make climate denialism a crime. The problem is that any competent lawyer would quickly raise incovenient issues.
1. The lawyer would first have to define climate science that would distinguish it from being a belief system or a political ideology. Without that, it could raise constitutional issues in free countries.
2. The lawyer would then need to state the matters of incontrovertible truth or well-established fact. The lawyer would soon say that most of the claimed incontrovertible truths are opinions or hearsay.

Indeed, it would be a worthwhile exercise and highly enlightening exercise to undertake. From an historical perspective they will find that instead of finding increasingly strong evidence for a (potentially) catastrophic future, there are ever blander statements about the weather changing. Cook et al 2013 plumbed new depths in this trend. I have done a diagram to illustrate the issue.https://manicbeancounter.com/2015/08/14/can-climatology-ever-be-considered-a-science/

They have never been willing to hold a major debate on climate change, so how could it be over? If you had overwhelming proof that humans were causing the climate to change for the worse, wouldn’t you want to debate all doubters, lay out your facts, and convince as many as you can, especially if you believed the future of the planet hung in the balance? The fact that they hide from debate and are unwilling to answer their critics directly tells you everything you need to know about the confidence they have in their ability to prove dangerous global warming is happening.

If he is ashamed to be a New Zealander, then, as a New Zealander, I am ashamed to have such a mindless, bigoted fool inciting a resumption of The Witch Hunts.

After all, they were intended to “Save the World” and “keep future generations safe” too. And they too, had no scientific basis. But everyone from the Kings down knew witches existed. And the bad weather was proof of their evil.

The solution for you Dr. Gilbert, is to find a small island somewhere which doesn’t have a climate, such as Campbell Island, or Auckland Island. They only have Weather, really bad weather.

Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmopshere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majoriety of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.

The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.

Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.

The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

But they cannot prove their case now can they. In a court of law a projection is not real evidence. Worse for them people with real science and data can indeed prove their case. Maybe we should turn their tactics on them and file a law suit for mass disinformation with the intent to panic. It is illegal to yell fire in a theatre.

It is actually perfectly legal to “yell fire in a theatre” provided there is evidence of a fire, such as smoke or visible flames.

The CAGWists are shouting “fire” without having any evidence but expect everyone to believe them and they do not accept that they have any responsibility for the results of their probably wrong shouts.

p.s. This “scientist” makes me feel embarrassed for my shaky homeland and the article proves I was correct to cease taking modern day newspapers.

Notice he says that the scientific CONSENSUS is so overwhelming… Nothing about evidence being overwhelming (not that there is any). If anything the consensus is falling apart as more voices are heard and more papers are written and published (yes, peer reviewed, as if that means anything anymore) expressing contrary views and evidence.

What is it about the GangGreen-Dream-Team that has them spouting the very opposite of what is happening around them? Yes, they are trying to influence the masses, having already worn out their lies and promotion of doom and gloom. Time is running out and fast now as the cold spell closes in on the world. It’s now or never for them.

They are so close to having it all and it’s slipping away. The skeptics are growing in number, populations are getting fed up with human-hating politics wrecking their lives and even school kids hate their lessons in Green and are turning away.

Yep, time is running out. They are all panicking. They have to scream louder, stamp their little feet and howl at the injustice of it all, but no one is listening anymore…

Crikey – a bit of research shows this poo-stirring goon to be a self promoting berk with a truly bloated sense of entitlement to public money coupled to a dose of conceit that’s overdosed on positive feedback.

An strutting expert on gang culture no less…. with a nose for a quick buck.

I also note that Dr Gilbert cares enough about the planet to not restrict his antics on two wheels to pedal powered vehicles – intellectually he’s at the tiny tricycle with pedals on the front wheel stage…..

I do not accept his idea about making Climate Denial a crime. That said, I would like to ask him a hypothetical question. If being in a climate denier is a crime, how about those that speak his “truth” about climate but, at the same time, live like kings? Celebrities like DeCaprio and Gore SAY the right things but very much DO the wrong things. Are they criminals in his neo-fascist world?

Please see my letter to the editor of the NZ Herald – emailed this morning. Doubt they will publish it though.

“The recent article by Dr. Jarrod Gilbert recommending criminal charges for climate change denialists is a tissue of arrant nonsense. I have yet to meet a climate sceptic who denies climate change, which has gone on for 4.5 billion years, and his quoted studies that 97% of climate scientists blame mans’ activities for recent global warming have been widely discredited as survey frauds. Clearly, Dr. Gilbert has not done much research. The great irony and danger in Dr. Gilbert’s remarks is that he is using his right to free speech to advocate shutting down the same rights for others who disagree with his opinions. Several Staes Attorneys General here in the U.S. have recently tried the same political tactic to shut down climate change dissent but all are now backing down. Based on Dr. Gilbert’s idiotic views a strong case can be made for banning all sociologists from our school rooms, giving evidence in courts and seeking political office.”

I noted a couple of grammatical errors below. I do a fair amount of letter writing to my local paper and when I notice an error I send a revision quickly, apologize for the error, and ask them to replace the previous with the corrected. They are happy to do so. But then, I am a paying subscriber.

Online comments require little effort but typically don’t change many minds, especially when the section is troll-bombed by parrots. A letter (or an opinion piece) from a knowledgeable New Zealander debunking this despicable doctor’s dastardly diatribe would be far more effective.

Kudos to Bill Lindqvist, who posted while I was looking at the Herald’s website. If the paper’s editor chooses to run it perhaps they will correct “a tissue of arrant nonsense” and “Staes Attorneys General.” Still, where are the New Zealanders?

Oops for the typo. Not in my original. A “tissue of lies” is a well known phrase and it’s not too much of a stretch to replace “lies” with “nonsense”. Arrant means ” utter, complete, absolute, outright etc”. So what’s the problem?

Already done…see my post above at July 26 @5:23am with a letter emailed 10 hours ago to the print version of the NZ Herald (to which I have been a subscriber for over 35 years). But they won’t publish it!

My bad, Bill, sorry. I wasn’t familiar with “tissue of lies.” Thanks to you and the Internet, I am now edified.

I’ve learned that ’tissue’ originally referred to ‘an intricately woven ornamental cloth’, not noseblow, and is first recorded in the Middle English allegorical poem “The Romaunt [Romance] of the Rose,” circa 1366, as “tyssu of satyne.” A tissue of lies as a complex, interwoven, series of lies is found in the London journal The Monthly Review of January, 1800:

The ingenuity and cunning of politicians are not infrequently employed to conceal or misinterpret facts; and venal writers are easily found, ready to construct a tissue of lies to serve the purposes of their employers.

I found the phrasing “tissue of arrant nonsense” is no stretch at all, as it appears in “The Modern Pythagorean: A Series of Tales, Essays, and Sketches, Volume 1” by Robert Macnish and David Macbeth Moirit, 1838.

I hope the editors at the Herald are as familiar with your phrase as I now am, in which case they must certainly publish your letter!

This attitude is so easy for quacks like this to have. His entire life and career produces nothing useful for society at all (ironic that they call it sociologist) and is made entirely possible by the very things which he is so vitriolic of. Essentially, it is the hard work and efficiency of the very things that he hates which enables him to have such a worthless existence as a pseudo-scientist. You’re welcome, even if you aren’t grateful.

Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
When you criminalize though and the pursuit of inquiry you stifle the very things that made our world. All science is the result of questioning the status quo and testing against the real world. Criminalizing that pursuit is the essence of intolerance and narrow mindedness. If the climate crowd cannot address questions, climatology is no longer a science. It’s a religion where everything must be taken on faith and acceptance and not by testing and evaluation.

What kind of a mind could justify the idea that “To disagree with me is a crime.”?
Whatever happened to “Let’s agree to disagree.”?
If one’s pride and ego have led to such a swelled head that they can’t risk the pin prick of disagreement, perhaps it’s time for them to re-examine just what it is they are so proud of?

Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels use does not materially affect climate. Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is in an interglacial period. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies seek to deceive by “adjusting” prior-period temperature data.

Nature converts ambient CO2 to limestone. Carbonates form in seawater and soils through calcification (ie. cyanobacteria and coccolithiphores). The simplified formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make calcite quickly in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with quicklime.

Its simple. Nature sequesters CO2 as limestone (calcite). The higher the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, the faster it becomes limestone. 99.84% of all carbon is sequestered in sediments. Earth absorbs ambient CO2 quickly.

Climate change results from a combination of (non-CO2) causes, such as sunspots, solar orbital variations, cosmic rays’ effect on clouds, and plate tectonics (well documented elsewhere). But it cannot be caused by CO2 arising from fossil fuels use, because nature efficiently recycles CO2 as carbonate minerals.

Only 3% of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels use. Most of the rest arises from rotting vegetation in swamps and jungles. Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/. Changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 emissions from these sources, and are not caused by them.

CO2 is in equilibrium. Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). See the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4.

The theory of human-caused climate change is based on a false premise. All the cost and hysteria of the global warming movement is a colossal waste, and results in poor economic growth. Tens of trillions of dollars wasted on foolish superstition, when hard working people are deprived. Energy policy as fashion goods. The dead hand of the state, picking winners & losers.

Coal is the lowest-cost and most reliable primary energy source for electric power generation. A modern coal plant emits few air emissions except water vapor and carbon dioxide.

Great comment…good to see some geological sense. You mention that “Only 3%of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel use”. I have heard this figure before but have never found a reliable reference…can you help? Ian Plimer stated that 3% of the atmospheric CO2 content is manmade but I’m not sure if this is correct.

Assuming that he did actually write, “there is no greater crime” then I am sickened by this topic. I think back to the horrendous crimes committed throughout history

Regardless of the huge advancements man has made in understanding and development, wisdom has not increased by one iota throughout written history. All the academic training and achievement possible cannot open the eyes when the brain is not capable. The fact that our institutions harbour such attitudes is scary. This guy teaches our young. If I was a parent of such a student I would pull them out and make a formal complaint. It is incitement of hatred

Unfortunately we have such extreme views in the skeptic camp. This fuels a fire in which the moderates who seek truth are hidden

It is sad that this violent brawl has reached the shores of New Zealand. I am ashamed too

Rather than suffer the indignity of being dragged away in the middle of the night by the secret Climate Denial Police, I have voluntarily admitted myself into the Climate Denial Aversion Therapy Clinic.
The admission brochure assures me that VTT (Voltaic Testicular Treatment) is highly effective and that only those resistant to 240 Volts and 1Amp will be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques involving forced viewing of endless re runs of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth and Leonardo DiCaprio’s Oscar Award acceptance speech.

“Social scientist”…”Dr”…this is a put-on, right? It can’t be real, why that would imply a total societal breakdown of the meaning and worth of a “scientist” and a “Dr” degree, right? Oh, wait…the breakdown is real and we now have (or maybe we’ve always had) only wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs – it just seems there are more wolves and more sheep nowadays. I blame the ozone “hole”. Or maybe Alar apples.

Why don’t preachy promoters of scary climate speak plain English ? Who denies climate change ? No one I know .
They can no longer pump the” climate has a fever” and associated melting Armageddon anymore without looking ridiculous so they throw out other politically correct climate camouflage . Climate changes . No kidding …who knew ? And guess what it even gets warmer or colder too . Take your pick which one you prefer because yep folks climate does indeed change unless you think you can control it . A potential AL Gore in the making .
Just because people don’t share your religion or puff tart choice doesn’t make it a criminal offence . It is however a sure sign the scary global warming industry is imploding .
A kind of 1930’s approach to behaviour modification is reveled and makes a desperate attempt at revival . It failed then and will fail now .
Scary climate promoters had a good run but now they are just going to have to do what humans always do when climate changes . Adapt by finding some new sources of funding and don’t forget to move the beach furniture an inch or two every 10 or 20 years . Happy fish though . More food and a bigger pool . What is not to like . Kind of makes up a bit for the millions of birds killed in bird blenders .

The book market is kind of done so not sure why this guy he is holding a book . Doesn’t he appear fashion sensitive though for the photo -op ? We hang on his every word .

In 1979, a study found “no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible”.

Might I suggest that this “social” scientist doesn’t know the first thing about how science really works. Additionally a study in 1979 probably doesn’t take into account a going on nineteen year pause in warming during a time when mankind has pumped nearly a full third of all the CO2 he EVER pumped into the atmosphere. Maybe he should brush up on his cause and effect.

That is a curious date for a ‘definitive’ study on global warming. I wonder what study he’s referring to. Also note the reference to “meta studies”; I suppose it’s OK as a substitute for meta analysis or meta-analytic studies, but it sounds awkward to my ear. Also, “seeking to prove it and the results are in” is a bit much in any context. So it really does sound like he’s out of his depth – and that he shouldn’t be venturing outside the kiddies’ section of the pool.

This phrase is a mantra among those in the warmist cult and this paper is based on incorrect, incomplete and out of date references. It’s also clearly biased as the conclusions are the first thing in the paper.

He’s right! Denying climate change is about as silly and ignorant as it gets. But real scientists are not contesting ‘climate change’ but global warming. I for one do not think that ‘change’ means warming. It could also mean cooling. Nor do I think that warming is dangerous. Give me warming anytime over cooling. This debate will get nowhere until honest language is used.

I’m fine with this, providing we also criminalise other beliefs that are detrimental to our well-being.

So let’s make it a criminal offence to be a Marxist or socialist.

To believe in the “clean slate” approach to our minds.

To believe that free trade and free markets do not create wealth,

To believe that the state should run services such as education and health,

These crazy ideas are causing real harm now, let alone in the future, so let’s send all those who believe in them straight to jail. If we can criminalise one belief, why can’t we criminalise lots of other beliefs too?

“scientific consensus is so overwhelming” – Wrong! There is no consensus, nor does science work by consensus. #Megalomania

“to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud” – Wrong! CC is pure conjecture, opinion. #IntellectualSnob

“intelligence can be tested” – Hahaha! His is definitely wanting. #Dumb

“heat-trapping gasses” Wrong! CO2 can no more trap heat than a garden sieve trap CO2. #YouCannotBeSerious

“but no one knew to what effect” Wrong! Observations point to CO2 having ZERO effect. #Clueless

“no reason to doubt that climate changes will result” Wrong! Presumption before the fact, and fact has demonstrated this (man’s CO2 driving climate/temperature) is false. #Astrologer

“no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible” Wrong! No basis to make any prediction as we simply don’t understand the climate system. Until we can properly and accurately measure natural variability, any presumption of man’s effect is meaningless. #ThinksHesGod

“scientists have been seeking to prove it” The antithesis of the Scientific Method. You test claims to disprove, not prove. #Clueless2

“and the results are in” and now suitably ‘adjusted’ to manufacture the proof. #Fraud

A soft headed Bozo with a Doctorate in a soft science that thinks people should be made to do hard time for expressing thoughts and opinions or even hard science that does not agree with an imaginary scientific consensus? Leftist Academics seem to be the same in most of the developed nations of the world. It’s like they were stamped out with a cookie cutter.

BTW the butthead seems to have plenty of time to keep his dome shaved and polished but can’t seem to get around to scraping his face. That right there would be enough for the perceptive student to know he’s a phony.

I suspect the term “Social Scientist” was added by the media to make Jarrod Gilbert into a “SCIENTIST” to give the article credibility. Now, thanks to the media writer/journalist, when you search “Scientist” on the Internet, you will find Jarrod Gilbert, supporting CAGW as a Scientist rather than a Sociologist. In his own web site, he clearly calls himself a sociologist. Media hype and appeal to authority by the media by using “Scientist” in their description. Typical. ( I didn’t find where he got his degree or PhD but he lectures at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand – PhD, BA (hons), Dip Ad) I suppose Dip Ad migh be for a diploma in advertising based on the references below. No where do I see attribution of “science: by Jarrod so I think that was a journalists addition although he does say “I believe in science and rationality …” on his web site.

I would take his “sound bite” as social commentary or advertising on behalf of …???

Well said. The same trick of passing off a social studies lecturer as an expert in climate science is in the Christchurch Press today where a Political “Scientist” is being sent to an international conference on Climate Change. What do such people know about a such a highly complex subject – so complex that we can’t model it well?.
Disciplines infested with Post Modernism must be wrong. It’s a shame that our political masters haven’t recognized this yet.

Scientists, PhDs, and academics in general have disgraced themselves, by endorsing politically correct, but unproven, theories, that the political Establishment, which issues their paychecks, has directed them to endorse. A growing segment of the public is becoming increasingly aware of these institutional scientific and academic frauds, and as public skepticism grows, there will be “blowback” (I have seen it already), in the form of a widespread disrespect and distrust of scientists, academics, and institutions. In the circumstances, I think that the public is justified in rejecting scientific and academic credentials as an indicator of competence, or of honesty.

I believe it is because there is actually a significant number of totalitarian minded people, who want us dead or in jail. The “sensationalism sells” mantra is just a cover . . that works because we’ve been brainwashed into believing totalitarian control freaks went extinct sometime late in the twentieth century. Nope, not even close I fear . .

I’m still trying to find someone that denies that the climate changes. when you find one of these ‘deniers’ please let me know. Jarrod should stick to gangs. Gang thinking is more in line with his. Do sociologists learn all about empirical evidence or is it all just qualitative stuff they learn?

It is amazing to know that 97% of scientists believe man can control earth’s climate by simply controlling co2 output. Is this not in effect what we are to believe? That mankind now controls the thermostat to the globe? Simply by controlling a trace gas that makes up 400 parts / million of the earth’s atmosphere? Never mind that historical levels of CO2 have been considerably higher with considerably lower global temperature. Never mind that the variable solar cycles are completely ignored while perpetuating the co2 propaganda. It’s settled science, the fix is in and it’s genius because now whatever solution proposed will succeed in solving a nonexistent problem.

The criminalization of climate skepticism would be a signal accomplishment for the leaders of the New World Order. If they can criminalize opinions about the climate, they can criminalize opinions concerning just about anything.

“In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon…

GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.”